We'd all like to see Russia and Ukraine and everywhere less corrupt and more democratic ... so, how? — boethius

It takes two parties for there to be corruption: One who wants to get ahead without doing the work or waiting his turn, and another who is willing to help him with that, in exchange for money or favors.
You can fire all the corrupt government officials, but as long as there are people who want to get ahead without doing the work or waiting their turn, there will be potential for corruption.

In short, corruption is possible when people don't value honest work and don't respect the order of things.
It then stands to reason that in order to minimize corruption, people need to value honest work and respect the order of things.

There is nothing we can really do about that except return to good faith dialogue and deescalate demonising both Putin and the Russians.

We cannot "win" with sticks and stones, and therefore can only "win" with words.

Which words exactly is the question.

That's not rocket science. Plain old common decency will do.

I don't see how debating just war from moral first principles would help arrive at a diplomatic resolution — boethius

It is my assumption that a diplomatic resolution cannot be arrived at as long as the matter of first principles hasn't been resolved.

First principles provide the bigger picture, the context for all practical interventions.

As things stand, we're trying to figure out what each party's first principles are, by making inferences from what they say about particular events and persons.

innocent bystanders — Olivier5

Someone who hates and despises isn't an "innocent bystander".

Often they would have the good sense to qualify their support: "I find him a bit intolerant, though." — Olivier5

In the 1930's the division was more between moderates being for democracy and radicals being for totalitarianism, be it right-wing or left-wing.

Far too easily people become apologists to someone who is against what the people really hate.

I'll be impressed with Sweden once it's self-sufficient and once its happiness and wellbeing don't depend on the misery of others. — baker

Actually prosperity and wellbeing emerges from trade. Not from closing the borders and confining to oneself.

But don't let the real world hinder your argumentation. And I think even official Sweden would be all but glad if all it's trading partners would be on the path to sustainable and ecofriendly economy that would make the countries prosperous. More prosperous people mean more IKEA stores around.

You really think it's "distance" and not "skin colour" determining the wildly different reactions to war, or which presumably there's always one side in the wrong and at least somebody is a victim, in different continents? — boethius

Not skin color per se, but the specific assumption about the level of civilization of a certain people. The general trend of this assumption being that the darker the skin color of a people, the less civilized they are. And the less civilized someone is assumed to be, the more the people who deem themselves more civilized are justified to patronize or despise them.


Although for some people, it is about distance. Of all the posters here, it seems that I am still the one who is closest to the battlefield. If they use mass nuclear weapons, the radioactive particles will reach where I live.

To me, this is the reason not to indulge in passion and feelings of hatred and contempt toward Russia. To me, the relatively short distance has a sobering psychological effect.

But don't let the real world hinder your argumentation. — ssu

And contempt wins the day once more.

Everyone has a right to exist. — FreeEmotion

That's a funny notion: existence as a right.

Some people need to be put down for what they do. — RogueAI

That's what Hitler thought about the Jews.

In short, corruption is possible when people don't value honest work and don't respect the order of things.
It then stands to reason that in order to minimize corruption, people need to value honest work and respect the order of things. — baker

It's no wonder that in totalitarian systems corruption is rampant. Because in the end it is about rule with fear and that doesn't bring legitimacy for the state. So nobody will first look after that collective wealth that is called the government, and if it's wealth is stolen. When corruption is tolerated you get the type of system that is in Russia where your position defines how much you can steal and from whom you can steal.

And contempt wins the day once more. — baker

Sweden, even official Sweden, would be extremely happy if Third World countries would develop and take care of their environments and people. That country didn't have much colonies you know.

That's what Hitler thought about the Jews. — Merkwurdichliebe

It's what we thought about Hitler's high command (some of them) at Nuremberg. We were right, the Nazi's were wrong.

In short, corruption is possible when people don't value honest work and don't respect the order of things.
It then stands to reason that in order to minimize corruption, people need to value honest work and respect the order of things. — baker

So your plan of action is to just get rid of the people who don't value honest work and respect the order of things?

That's not rocket science. Plain old common decency will do. — baker

If all the people without plain old common decency were exterminated (the people that cause the problems) then all would be well?

Not skin color per se, but the specific assumption about the level of civilization of a certain people. The general trend of this assumption being that the darker the skin color of a people, the less civilized they are. And the less civilized someone is assumed to be, the more the people who deem themselves more civilized are justified to patronize or despise them. — baker

What the fuck are you talking about?

And other countries in other parts of the world have to pay the price for your life quality and freedom.

Like those poor South American countries that produce the lithium for your precious electric cars. Those countries are destroying their own land and their own people with dirty industry so that you can be "high on indexes of life quality and freedom".

I'll be impressed with Sweden once it's self-sufficient and once its happiness and wellbeing don't depend on the misery of others. — baker

You don't seem to know much about Sweden, do you? Like, you don't even seem to know that our small/mid economy compared to the big superpowers, spend more of our GDP on foreign aid and support for the poor of the world than most other nations in the world. That we have a greater focus on fair trade agreements and handling the economy in a sustainable way than most.

If you're gonna try and blame Sweden for being a "bad western nation" I would say that it's a bad direction to try and argue hypocrisy. Maybe the rest of the western nations should copy Sweden more before throwing out any blame. Lead by example.

The EU is a project. It's not finished yet. — Olivier5

Well, finished or unfinished, all projects need money, n'est-ce pas?

Incidentally, the EU’s desperate attempts to break free from London isn’t quite going according to plan:

Brussels' plot to raid London’s €660 trillion (£563 trillion) clearing market has been dealt a major blow after Europe’s most powerful banking association issued a blistering attack against the bloc’s proposals.
The European Banking Federation (EBF) said the Commission’s plan to punish banks for failing to shift lucrative clearing business out of the City of London would cause “serious market disruption” and “significantly weaken the attractiveness and competitiveness” of EU clearing houses.

Brussels’ plot to raid City clearing dealt a major blow – Telegraph

As is well-known, EBF which represents nearly 6000 banks, has powerful members like UK Finance which is chaired by former chairman of Morgan Grenfell and Merrill Lynch, Bob Wigley, who is also cofounder of TheCityUk. TheCityUk’s board of directors and leadership council include officers of Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, BlackRock, Citi, American International, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

So, I think you can draw your own conclusions as to who dominates Europe's finances ....

Would direct democracy prevent wars? Suppose the Russians were asked to vote on the question of whether to go to war .. or SMO in Ukraine, and the Urainians were asked to vote on giving up the dream of joining NATO and some other changes in order to prevent Russian forces from attacking, how would that go?

I am not too familiar with the thinking in that part of the world, not about how my fellow human beings think, after all, some want to fight to the death - sorry want other people to fight to the death, so I don;t know - I guess some people will vote for resisting Russian aggression and then leave the country.

Obviously this will not work. Things have changed:

The first examples of direct democracy can be found in the ancient Greek city-state of Athens, where decisions were made by an Assembly of some 1,000 male citizens.

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-direct-democracy-3322038

Here is an article:

https://directdemocracyuk.substack.com/p/would-a-direct-democracy-go-to-war?s=r

Peter Zeihan on NATO provocations:

https://youtu.be/gbr3CiOhTO8

I keep hearing that if Ukraine would have just committed to neutrality, or the West would not provide arms, all would be well. Would it? I am not so sure.

We were right, the Nazi's were wrong. — RogueAI

The Nazis were definitely wrong. Im not so sure "We" are right. The world is not so black and white.

If the Nazis didn't exist the West would have to invent them in order to exculpate themselves for all the horror they have ever committed. There's nothing someone in the West loves more than a Nazi - they serve the perfect internal excuse against which the West can maintain its pristine innocence, once expelled as some kind of abberant otherness.

If the Nazis didn't exist the West would have to invent them in order to exculpate themselves for all the horror they have ever committed. — StreetlightX

You are the Voltaire of modern political theory.

Money is not a problem. There's vast amount of it everywhere. Europe is rich. Now that the Brits are gone, the EU has a better chance of making progress. We were slowed down by these free wheelers.

The more the Russians murder innocent bystanders, children, grandmothers and the likes, the more hospitals, maternities and supermarket they bomb , the harder it will be to make any lasting peace.
— Olivier5

Someone who hates and despises isn't an "innocent bystander". — baker

How do you know that the children crushed by bombs in Mariupol or elsewhere 'hate and despise' the bombers?

Hating your own murderer justifies the murder now?

Aren't you full of hatred yourself, to the brim?

Some value or pretend to value nationality in highest degree and shape their political views or actions accordingly — neomac

So how does this 'fact' link to the morality of fighting for one's nation? Lots of people value money too. Does that make fighting over money moral?

how come that the Russian soldiers (example of working class) prefer to kill Ukrainian families (which surely include members of the Ukrainian working class) instead of killing or mass revolting against the Russian ruling class (Putin and his entourage) if they have greater interest in opposing their ruling class more than in opposing other people? — neomac

I didn't say they realised or agreed, I just said they had more in common with each other than their rulers and bosses.

Oppression is one, not the only element that I would take into consideration for moral assessment. Indeed “oppression” is a word with a moral connotation but I don’t take it to be necessarily negative, so its moral implications depend on the context: e.g. oppressing the Nazis, Isis, communist terrorists, organised crime would be morally defensible. — neomac

The word 'oppression' already covers that. What you're talking about is 'suppression'.

oppression
noun [ U ]
uk
/əˈpreʃ.ən/ us
/əˈpreʃ.ən/
oppression noun (RULE)
a situation in which people are governed in an unfair and cruel way and prevented from having opportunities and freedom:

But I still don't see how it ties back to the argument. We're talking about moral reasons to keep fighting. I'm arguing that simply 'defending one's nation' alone is insufficient as a moral reason because the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another. Over time, even Russia's current atrocity will pale into insignificance compared to the lives cut short and ruined because of the ruling classes inhumane treatment of the poor - from whatever nation. I really don't see how you pointing out that some groups need to be suppressed bears any connection to that argument whatsoever. Are you saying the working class ought to be oppressed?

If the word “oppression” has a moral connotation, then “working class are oppressed by the elite classes” is not a factual claim but a moral claim. — neomac

That's right. There are two moral judgements right there in the definition I provided. 'Unfair' and 'cruel'. I would have thought it pretty self-evident that people swanning about in luxury yachts whilst children starve to death in their rubbish was both unfair and cruel - but if you think it's fine, then I don't think there's anything I can do do convince you otherwise.

how much responsibility bears Putin and Russian soldiers for the fact that Russian soldiers are killing Ukrainian children wrt Zelensky, Biden, me, what is the math you are doing based on your still clandestine multi-causal theory? That’s necessary (yet not sufficient) to estimate what the most adequate morally response is. — neomac

Why on earth would some kind of maths be necessary? Zelensky bears some moral responsibility for the deaths if he chooses to continue fighting when he could have take a less harmful other option. That's just a statement about how moral responsibility works. It doesn't require me to do any maths. If you don't agree then you'd have to offer an alternative theory of moral responsibility; one in which people can make decisions without any blame accruing to them for the foreseeable outcomes.

Do you mean that Russian soldiers and Putin should have considered Ukrainian children’s interest before killing & bombing them? — neomac

No. The paragraph wasn't about Russian soldiers and Putin. It was about The governments of Ukraine, the US and Europe, plus their supporters.

> Where did I write anything even remotely related to deposing Zelensky?

Here, “It's not their lives. Zelensky (and his government) decide how to proceed.” and “I don't see anyone asking the Ukrainian children if they'd rather lose both parents and remain governed by Zelensky, or retain their family and be governed by a Putin puppet.” These 2 claims strongly suggest that the issue is with Zelensky government and things would be better with Putin puppet. — neomac

They don't 'strongly suggest' anything of the sort. It's absolutely absurd to suggest that every time I raise a criticism about a government decision, I'm calling for them to be deposed.

since I do not have direct access to what they want collectively, then I would take Zelensky as their chosen representative in times of peace and in times of war, until I’m proven wrong. BTW Zelensky support among Ukrainians is confirmed to me by some good feedback from expat Ukrainian friends and foreign reporters on the ground”. — neomac

So the elected leader of a country is assumed right about the values of that country until proven wrong? Do you apply that to your own country? Was President Trump, for example, right about the values of Americans simply by virtue of being their elected leader? What about the values of those who can't vote - children, the future generations - do they get a say?

> So I was asking you how you measured the degree of mistrust on this occasion to be 'too much' mistrust.

Negotiations failed, so either the demands were unacceptable and/or the assurances weren’t enough. Since I wasn’t there at the negotiation table, I can only guess from available evidences and plausible reasons that support either cases. I already provided some for both cases. So if assurances weren’t enough at the negotiation table (which I find plausible due to evidences and reasons), then the mistrust was too much. — neomac

That doesn't follow at all. Two parties could trust each other 100% and still not reach agreement on the deal because neither side thinks they have the concession they were looking for. It need have nothing to do with trust.

> America and Europe entering into negotiations with Russia.

What are the reasons you have to support America and Europe entering into negotiations with Russia? What do you expect them to do? — neomac

They are parties to the war. Negotiations generally include all parties. What I expect them to do is to offer concessions and make demands in the same way any party to a negotiation would.

> So intention has nothing to do with morality? If I intend to murder someone, but end up accidentally helping them, that's exactly the same, morally, as if I intended to help them all along?

When I’m talking about moral reasons to act, I’m not talking about someone’s intentions to act according to those reasons, as you did in your example. So you simply misunderstood what I was saying. Concerning intentions I already made my point so you can address it, if you wish so. — neomac

Doesn't answer the question. I asked "Is there any evidence that that's even the intention?" [with regard to the supply of weapons] and you replied "That’s irrelevant. I’m talking about moral reasons to help" If America's intention in supplying weapons is to make a profit, then one cannot say their help is moral, even if their action accidentally assists a moral cause.

If and when a form of dominance increases the chances of refilling my belly more than having my head decapitated, that’s something I would personally take into account, also for morally establishing what is the lesser evil in the given circumstances. — neomac

Really? So your personal satiation determines what's moral? That's certainly an odd notion of morality. What about the effect on others?

My example that you extrapolated from its context, was simply meant to address your preposterous moral claim that fighting over a flag is no doubt immoral. And you never addressed it as such. So once again, if you were to choose only about these 2 options, would you prefer to be dominated by Isis or America? And between Russia and America? — neomac

America over Isis. America over Russia. Now, those are not the only choices, what on earth have they got to do with the question of whether fighting over nationality is moral?

Moral force should be assessed based on what people actually value. — neomac

Second time you've made this odd claim. People value money, so fighting over money is moral?

if Putin and Russian soldiers kill Ukrainians are immoral, if Ukrainians kill Russian invaders and murderers are moral. — neomac

Agreed. But we were talking about the US, so I don't see the relevance. Western capitalist systems kill and immiserate millions of innocent people. Russian wars kill and immiserate millions of people. Ending one by invoking the other neither helps nor has any moral force. You seemed to think it did, I'm enquiring about that.

> I assume Ukraine demand that the invasion stops.

This is one thing they demand, not the only one though. — neomac

No. I'm sure the current Russian demands don't constitute the full sum of all they'd want either. The point is, they started the war, so it's just self-evident, they'd have a different list of grievances

> Putin is currently consolidating his power. So should we stop sanctions on those grounds?

Would stopping sanctions oppose Putins’ power consolidation more than preserving them for a good while or making them even stronger? Or would Putin be more ready to significantly soften his demands before we removed those sanctions? — neomac

That's not the question. The question was a moral one. If Putin's power consolidation was increased bu sanction and NATO involvement in the war, then ought we avoid those things?

> There's no reason at all to assume that agreeing to terms would increase Putin's power any more than not agreeing and losing the war. Or not agreeing and having NATO have to step in and win the war - both of which might end up increasing Putin's power, cementing his alliance with China and worsening the global political balance of power.

Agreed, but that has to do with geopolitical risk assessment that all great power politics must face in similar daring circumstances. And undoubtedly Western & Ukrainian leaders are not assuming anything for granted. However the situation looks to me much worse now, since Putin and China (as Putin and Xi Jinping talked about new world order) could take any concessions as a sign of weakness. — neomac

Right. So as far as the moral case is concerned, you concede the point that continuing to fight is not morally advised simply on the grounds of 'opposing Putin's expansionism' since it is a moot point what course of action would best do that. You agree then that I could very well be determinedly opposed to Putin's expansionism and yet advocate ending the war right now and agreeing to the terms on the table since it's perfectly possible to consider that course of action to be the one which will most effectively bring about an end to that expansionism?

> You're assuming war is the only way to oppose expansionism. I disagree with the US using war to oppose Russian expansionism. I don't disagree with it being opposed in other senses.

If we are talking about Great Power politics, the only pertinent sense of opposition is how geopolitically meaningful such an opposition is. And, once again, to assess opposing strategies one should consider the views and demands of all competing powers, not the views and demands as framed by only one power, as you did. — neomac

You've no idea whose views and demands I considered, since consideration goes on in my head. I only told you the course of action I thought best. Since you've agreed that it's complex and not easy to judge which course of action will bring about an end to Putin's power and which will consolidate it further, you can't possibly say, simply from the course of action I advocate, whose views and demands I've taken into account.

> What standard of living to anticipate Ukrainians having after the US has finished drafting the terms of its loan agreements? Cuts to welfare spending, opening up markets to US competitors. You think those policies are going to benefit the poor in Ukraine?

I’m not sure. — neomac

Right. So If I think their standard of living will be considerably worse, then It's a reasonable position to take that involving the US is not worth the benefit.

our capacity to provide a strategic analysis about Great Power politics is constrained by our non-expert understanding of a limited, second-hand and uncertain amount of available evidences. So for what strategy is concerned I tend to defer more to the feedback of experts and leaders, and then double-check based on what I find logic or consistent with other sources and background knowledge. In other words, on my side there isn’t much intellectual commitment you could challenge wrt “foreseeable consequences”, “metrics”, “de facto”, “help”, while on your side I don’t see much compelling strategic insights wrt “foreseeable consequences”, “metrics”, “de facto”, “help” to challenge what I understood about the stakes so far. That’s why I limited myself to support some moral claims (like a “carrot&stick” containment strategy by Western leaders was morally more defensible than a “murder&destroy” strategy by Putin or the continuation of this war is morally defensible depending on what Ukrainians and Westerners value) wrt all strategic understanding I could intellectually afford. — neomac

So you choose your "experts and leaders" randomly? Of course, when faced with situations where the consequences cannot be predicted by laymen, we cannot ourselves make judgements about what course of action will lead to what outcome, but we can judge who to trust, based on matter we are qualified to judge (such as intentions, trustworthiness, past record) matter that are either clear or for which there's no body of knowledge we can call on to for determination.

So why do you trust those who tell you that continuing to fight is better for the Ukrainian people? Why do you trust those who tell you that life under the terms of a US/European loan system will be better than one under Russian puppet government? If the outcomes of strategic decisions are beyond your expertise, then why do you choose to trust the experts and leaders supporting your current position and not those supporting the alternatives?

So you are saying that Palestinians should accept Israeli de facto settlements in the West Bank because they are “de facto”? The Talibans didn’t accept any “de facto” Afghan puppet government and took back their control over Afghanistan eventually. The expression "whatever it takes” simply refers to the fact that, in geopolitical strategy, demands and options are not assessed by one party the way their competitor frame them as I said repeatedly. — neomac

No. That's literally the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying the actual terms matter. It's not just a question of 'capitulate to any demands to avoid war', it's 'avoid the worst option'.

Concerning the question “if torture would stop Putin's expansionism could be morally defensible?” my answer is yes, if for example we are talking about torturing Putin. — neomac

So some methods are not acceptable? How about the continued exposure of millions of innocent children to Russian atrocities? Is that not an unacceptable method for you?

> The war is financed, given military and strategic support, and politically influenced by the US and Europe. You can't just bracket them out as if they had no relevance.

I’m not bracketing anything out. This is a proper starting point to morally reason about this war as I already argued. And will always start from there when questioning your preposterous moral claims about this war. — neomac

Go on then. Let's hear how you take US and European strategies into account.

In the 1930's the division was more between moderates being for democracy and radicals being for totalitarianism, be it right-wing or left-wing. — ssu

This dichotomy is still with us. After two generations tried to remember the horrors of Nazism, now people are eager to forget and to come back to simple solutions. So you see folks here conceding that Putin might be a bit authoritarian, yes?, like Hitler was deemed "a bit intolerant" back in the 30's. But in the grand scheme of things, they wet their panties for the big guy who sticks it to the Jews err West.

now people are eager to forget and to come back to simple solutions. — Olivier5

Imagine that. Anyone thinking solutions are so simple. Like thinking it's either full out war or Russian despotism. What kind of an idiot would be so simple as to think those were the only two options?

If the Nazis didn't exist the West would have to invent them in order to exculpate themselves for all the horror they have ever committed. There's nothing someone in the West loves more than a Nazi - they serve the perfect internal excuse against which the West can maintain its pristine innocence, once expelled as some kind of abberant otherness. — StreetlightX

Do notice the universality of this, which obviously can be seen from Putin's rhetoric. Of course when it comes to Putin, he is willing to aid neo-nazis and right-wing extremists if it furthers his agenda of creating more instability in the West.

Which creates ironic twists as right-wing extremists organizations that are banned for example in my country then get help from Russia. At least earlier they weren't so in bed with Russians, but times change.

Do notice the universality of this, which obviously can be seen from Putin's rhetoric. Of course when it comes to Putin, he is willing to aid neo-nazis and right-wing extremists if it furthers his agenda of creating more instability in the West. — ssu

Do notice the universality of this, which obviously can be seen from the West's rhetoric. Of course when it comes to the West, they are willing to aid neo-nazis and right-wing extremists if it furthers their agenda of creating more instability in the Rest.

This dichotomy is still with us. After two generations tried to remember the horrors of Nazism, now people are eager to forget and to come back to simple solutions. So you see folks here conceding that Putin he might be a bit authoritarian, like Hitler was deemed "a bit intolerant" back in the 30's. But in the grand scheme of things, they wet their panties for the big guy who sticks it to the Jews err West. — Olivier5

Exactly.

Why he is just standing against Western imperialism. Anyone opposing the US gets their understanding.

Like thinking it's either full out war or Russian despotism. What kind of an idiot would be so simple as to think those were the only two options? — Isaac

A person being bombed by Russian despotism could view things this way, I guess.

A person being bombed by Russian despotism could view things this way, I guess. — Olivier5

They could. But no one writing on this thread is being bombed by Russian despotism, so that's irrelevant. Both your comment and mine were directed at the non-bombed.

But, still, feel free to reply with another totally irrelevant bit of virtue signalling, we haven't yet had the glaring light of your pure virtue burnt fully into our retinas. Do please remind us one more time, is bombing children bad?

Yes. Charitably speaking, people are also tired of a unipolar world, something I can understand, and it's a new thing, not a feature in the 30's. It's not healthy that the US army be as large as what? the next 5 to 10 national armies put together? They are just too dominant. And hypocritical to high degree. That much I can concede.

So when a guy challenges that dominance, even an evidently evil guy, a mass murderer, some simple minds see that as a plus.

Of course when it comes to the West, they are willing to aid neo-nazis and right-wing extremists if it furthers their agenda of creating more instability in the Rest. — StreetlightX

At least not openly, but otherwise can be very much so. And of course, especially in the US these groups are infiltrated with typically the most ardent members trying to get others to do violence are FBI / Police agents. Seems then that these extremists are the cannon fodder for both sides in these turbulent times.

A mere glance at the first months of the conflict in Donbas makes it clear that Rogozin also enlisted other far-right groups and individuals, with these having no problem with killing Ukrainians. Both the Ukrainian supporters of ‘Russian World’ ideology whom Moscow had been cultivating since 2006, and many of the Russian militants in prominent positions or involved in the fighting in Donbas had neo-Nazi or far-right views. Those involved in fighting Ukrainians in Donbas included Alexander Barkashov, head of the neo-Nazi Russian National Unity party and other members of his party; of Alexander Dugin’s ultra-nationalist Eurasia Party; Edward Limonov’s Other Russia party and Black Hundred.

The Kremlin has long cultivated close ties with far-right parties in Europe, with these providing many of the politicians whom Russia invited to ‘observe’ the farcical ‘referendums’ staged in occupied Crimea and then Donbas in the Spring of 2014, as well as the comical ‘elections’ in Donbas in November 2014.

Of course when it comes to Putin, he is willing to aid neo-nazis and right-wing extremists if it furthers his agenda of creating more instability in the West.

Which creates ironic twists as right-wing extremists organizations that are banned for example in my country then get help from Russia. At least earlier they weren't so in bed with Russians, but times change. — ssu

One more time for the slow ones at the back...

We have no say whatsoever over Russian policy so whinging about it is nothing but empty virtue signalling.

We do have both a say and a duty to hold our own governments to account. So doing so is not only useful but necessary.

It is not about balance, we don't need to discover who's worst and condemn them most.

We discover what our governments, our allies, are doing wrong and hold them to account for it.